Language:
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

### GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

Custom Search

### Author Topic: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1  (Read 174398 times)

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #240 on: December 07, 2019, 02:44:16 PM »
I am sending again our post of March 26, 2019, 10:39:21 AM.
"Please have a look at the book "Solved Problems in Physics", 2004, Volume 2, p. 876, solved problem 12.97. The author of this book is Prof. S. L. Srivastava (Ph.D.)
--------------------------
For your convenience I am giving below the text of the problem and its solution.
--------------------------
12.97. In the electrolysis of sulphuric acid solution, 100 mg of hydrogen is liberated in a period of 20 minutes. The resistance of the electrolyte is 0.5 Ohm. Calculate the power consumed. Electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen is 1.044 x 10 -8 kg/C.
Solution: The power consumed is equal to 31.86 W.
Prof. S. L. Srivastava stops here his calculations.
(The related solution's set of equations is not given here in order to save time and space. This set of equations however can be found in the book or in the link above.)
--------------------------
The above solved problem has a potential which can be developed further. And here it is.
1) Let us calculate the inlet energy, that is, inlet energy = (31.86 W) x (1200 s) = 38232 Ws = 38232 J.
2) Let us calculate the current I. The current I is given by I = (m)/(Z x t) = 7.9 A,
where
m = 0.0001kg of hydrogen
Z = electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen
t = 1200 s
3) The Joule's heat, generated in the process of electrolysis is given by
Q = I x I x R x t = (7.9 A) x (7.9 A) x (0.5 Ohm) x (1200 s) = 37446 J = outlet energy 1.
4) HHV of hydrogen is 142 000 000 J/kg. Therefore the heat H, generated by burning/exploding of 0.0001 kg of hydrogen, is given by
H = (142 000 000) x (0.0001) = 14200 J = outlet energy 2.
5) Therefore we can write down the equalities:
5A) outlet energy 1 + outlet energy 2 = 37446 J + 14200 J = 51646 J
5B) inlet energy = 38232 J.
6) Therefore COP is given by
COP = 51646 J/38232 J = 1.35  <=>  COP = 1.35  <=>  COP > 1.
------------------------------
Constant pure water and cooling agent supply could keep constant the electrolyte's temperature, heat exchange, mass and ohmic resistance, respectively.
Besides 0.0001 kg of hydrogen (and the related amount of the already split pure water) is small enough and can be neglected as a factor influencing the electrolyte's temperature, mass and ohmic resisitance.
-----------------------------
And one more interesting fact.
Literally the same solved problem can be found in an old Russian (still from the Soviet times) book "Сборник задач и вопросов по физике", 1986, p. 130, solved example problem 71. The authors of this book are Р. А. Гладкова and Н. И. Кутиловская. In the Russian version the data is a little different, that is, time is 25 minutes, the amount of generated hydrogen is 150 mg, Ohmic resisitance is 0.4 Ohm and the calculated power is 37 W.
Russians also stopped their calculations at 37 W.
Our further development of the Russian version led to COP = 1.37, that is, we have again COP > 1.
-----------------------------
Therefore the text above unambiguously shows that it is a matter of exact experimental data which is in perfect accordance with theory. Because I cannot imagine that three highly qualified experts in physics (yet strongly separated by time, space and nationality) would have made one and same mistake three times in a row. This is impossible!"
-----------------------------
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against the text above?
-----------------------------
Regards,
George

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #241 on: December 10, 2019, 07:05:23 PM »
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against the text of our previous post?

#### Sergh

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 307
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #242 on: December 11, 2019, 08:55:08 AM »
1. If free energy is obtained with some types of electrolysis:
- it can be assumed that certain chemicals in the electrolyte can initiate the breaking of chemical bonds. There may be some aggressive elements that are in a chemically neutral compound. During electrolysis, neutrality is violated, and due to this, “zero point energy” is captured.  Maybe it's not sulfuric acid, maybe there was something else, as an impurity in the water from a conventional water supply system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrophile

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleophile

2. If not.. At a current of 7.9 amperes and a voltage of 3.9 volts on the cell, strong electrolysis probably occurred. Probably the current could change over time. It was necessary to integrate the results over time. When using conventional U, I or Power meters, there may be a large measurement error occured.

http://www.designer-iii.com/cco/RMS.pdf

In Soviet times, obtaining efficiency> 100% was publicly ridiculed and was considered inexperience and experimental errors.
In principle, as elsewhere in the World. Remember what happened with Fleischmann - Pons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Fleischmann

Therefore, no real scientist will write in an explicit form about obtaining an efficiency> 100%, because he will be afraid that his colleagues will laugh at him and consider him a marginal.

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3534
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #243 on: December 11, 2019, 09:21:10 AM »
(.....deep sigh)

I am not certain what your propaganda is trying to promote.
Are you selling books? Pimping out your favorite scientist?
What is the point of all of this?

Never mind

My point is simple.
How much Energy is required to bond a sulphur quadroxide to
the hydrogen molecule (H2) ?

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #244 on: December 14, 2019, 08:35:16 AM »
To Sergh.
-------------------------
Hi Sergh,
----------------------------
(Here is the beginning of your last post text.)
1. If free energy is obtained with some types of electrolysis:
- it can be assumed that certain chemicals in the electrolyte can initiate the breaking of chemical bonds. There may be some aggressive elements that are in a chemically neutral compound. During electrolysis, neutrality is violated, and due to this, “zero point energy” is captured.  Maybe it's not sulfuric acid, maybe there was something else, as an impurity in the water from a conventional water supply system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrophile

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleophile

2. If not.. At a current of 7.9 amperes and a voltage of 3.9 volts on the cell, strong electrolysis probably occurred. Probably the current could change over time. It was necessary to integrate the results over time. When using conventional U, I or Power meters, there may be a large measurement error occured.

http://www.designer-iii.com/cco/RMS.pdf

In Soviet times, obtaining efficiency> 100% was publicly ridiculed and was considered inexperience and experimental errors.
In principle, as elsewhere in the World. Remember what happened with Fleischmann - Pons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Fleischmann

Therefore, no real scientist will write in an explicit form about obtaining an efficiency> 100%, because he will be afraid that his colleagues will laugh at him and consider him a marginal.
(Here is the end of your last post text.)
------------------------------
YOU ARE NOT READING CAREFULLY MY POSTS! PLEASE READ VERY CAREFULLY AGAIN WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN IN MY LAST POST!
The traditional scientists as shown in our last post are giving only a standard water electrolysis process problem. AND OUR TEAM DEVELOPED IT FURTHER AND DRAW THE CONCLUSION THAT STANDARD WATER ELECTROLYSIS PROCESS THEORETICALLY HAS EFFICIENCY/C.O.P. BIGGER THAN 1. That's all!
George

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #245 on: December 14, 2019, 08:39:55 AM »
To Sergh.
Please read carefully again our post containing the problem. We have described how to keep a constant neutrality.
George

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #246 on: December 14, 2019, 08:49:59 AM »
To smOky2.
----------------------------
No, I am not selling books! YOU ARE NOT READING CAREFULLY MY POSTS! I am only citing a standard problem which can be found in two different textbooks. Our team developed further this standard problem and draw the conclusion that standard water electrolysis theoretically has efficiency/C.O.P. bigger than 1. Please also read CAREFULLY my answers to Sergh.
George

#### kolbacict

• Hero Member
• Posts: 670
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #247 on: December 14, 2019, 09:56:17 AM »
Quote
Our team developed further this standard problem and draw the conclusion that standard water electrolysis theoretically has efficiency/C.O.P. bigger than 1.
Didn’t Stanley Meyer do this a little earlier?

p.s.
Quote
tell him,waiting for an answer, like a nightingale of summer.

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #248 on: December 14, 2019, 10:36:23 AM »
Hi kolbacict,
I am not familiar with the details related to Stanley Meyer's adventure. I know only for sure that he invented a water electrolysis car motor. And we invented a water electrolysis heater.
George

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3534
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #249 on: December 14, 2019, 11:03:29 AM »
To smOky2.
----------------------------
No, I am not selling books! YOU ARE NOT READING CAREFULLY MY POSTS! I am only citing a standard problem which can be found in two different textbooks. Our team developed further this standard problem and draw the conclusion that standard water electrolysis theoretically has efficiency/C.O.P. bigger than 1. Please also read CAREFULLY my answers to Sergh.
George

H + H2 + O + O2 burns at 10,000 degrees
And over time the total energy far exceeds what we use to create
The reaction.

Important: this is NOT a stoichiometric mixture!!!
Over unity in this subject was noted by Bulgarian Physicist
Yull Brown, and disputed by the top scientists in the field.

Brown’s Gas will NOT react in a fuel cell with 100% efficiency.
It’s a combustible fuel.
It’s called “common ducted”.
In their ionic state, the molecules bond together to form H2 and O2
This energy is retained like a hydrocarbon
When combusted you gain the H H O reaction
As well as the H2 + O, and added heat from extra O2

it’s technically not “overunity” but it puts out more energy than we ourselves put in.
So in that sense, the two are indistinguishable.

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #250 on: December 14, 2019, 11:13:45 AM »
Hi smOky2,
All you have written is correct but we are talking about different things. Please read carefully again my last post!

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #251 on: December 17, 2019, 10:37:23 AM »
PLEASE DO NOT FEAR THE TRUTH!
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections?

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3534
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #252 on: December 19, 2019, 08:44:57 AM »
PLEASE DO NOT FEAR THE TRUTH!
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections?

Theoretical objection? No.
My personal theory is pretty close to yours, but with an efficient process
We don’t meet any acid-tricks
This is the point I am trying to deliver to you.

My objection is Physical: the core of Physics.
Acid = energy
Base = potential to change energy
If you add an acid to a process, you are adding energy.
It required energy to make that acid.
Acid is a battery waiting for electrodes.
Mother Nature makes these with her Fruit.

Base is basic, all elements were there in the beginning

Base can help split H like acids too, because bases are not our ground state.
We need energy to make bases too.
H=1
A base of 0 is the same as an acid of 2
They are both +/- 1 from our H

H is +1 from our ground state!
That is our f.e.
Irrespective of Acid or Base!

Leave them alone,
Use only pure H2O

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #253 on: December 23, 2019, 12:13:18 PM »
Hi smOky2,
1) You have not theoretical objections? That's good! Cogratulations! At last one clever and brave person in this forum who does not fear the truth!
2) About acid and base. Yes, you are absolutely right, that acid and base need energy to be prepared. But this energy (let us call it E1) is much smaller than the total heat (let us call it E2) generated by any standard electrolyzer, that is, E2 > E1. (E2 is the sum of the joule's heat and the heat generated by burning/exploding of the released hydrogen in the process of electroysis.)
Secondly, if you keep cooling down the electrolyzer regularly, then the sulphuric acid volume (let us assume that the considered electrolyzer uses sulphuric acid) remains practically the same. The sulphuric acid practically does not evaporate. And from here there is practically no necesity for additional pouring of sulphuric acid. You have to add only water.
And thirdly, there are electrolytes like sea water (and many others), which are able to generate hydrogen by the method of electrolysis, and which does not need (specially generated) energy for their production. They can be found freely and easily in nature.
3) About "Irrespective of Acid and Base!". Sounds interesting! Some more details? Can we use a standard electrolyzer or we have to design another electroyzer construction?
George

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #254 on: December 27, 2019, 08:22:39 AM »
Deep silence again?
WHY DO YOU FEAR THE TRUTH?
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections?
George